Some Biblical teachings occur only once.

[37818]

On course one-time historical events. But there are the one-time doctrinal passages.
There are some teachings repeated only once.

 

[Reformed1689]

huh?

 

[37818]

Hebrews 9:28, ". . . shall he appear the second time . . .' only occurs here.
1 Corinthians 15:52, ". . . the last trump . . . ." only here.
Revelation 20:6, ". . . the first resurrection . . . ." mentioned as such only here.

 

[SavedByGrace]

so what is the purpose of this thread? Whether a teaching in the Bible occurs one time, or a hundred times, so what? Are you casting doubt on the single references?

 

[SavedByGrace]

huh?

I am sure that this is another BB account of Van

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I am sure that this is another BB account of Van

No, it's not.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I have experienced fierce opposition in my life from some other believers when I have drawn attention to truths that are taught only once in Scripture. I can attest from direct personal experience that there are believers out there who argue intensely against placing doctrinal importance on some things that are only stated once in Scripture.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I have experienced fierce opposition in my life from some other believers when I have drawn attention to truths that are taught only once in Scripture. I can attest from direct personal experience that there are believers out there who argue intensely against placing doctrinal importance on some things that are only stated once in Scripture.

Wouldn't it be better to emphasize doctrines to the same degree that the Bible does?

 

[Van]

Wouldn't it be better to emphasize doctrines to the same degree that the Bible does?

"Importance" is a concept worth discussing. If a circumstance is described in all four Gospels, can we infer that the circumstance is important. I think so. Things mentioned 4 or 3 or 2 times are probably more important to the gospel than items mentioned only once. And another issue to consider is if we have multiple accounts we can through study probably be more sure that our understanding hits close to the mark.

Here is a list of events described in all four gospels: (from an internet site)

"1) Baptism of John: Mt. 3:1-17; Mk. 1:1-11; Lk. 3:1-22; Jn. 1:15-34.
2) Feeding of 5000: Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:30-44; Lk. 9:10-17; Jn. 6:1-15.
3) Peter's Profession: Mt. 16:13-19; Mk. 8:27-29; Lk. 9:18-20; Jn. 6:66-71.
4) Anointing by Mary: Mt. 26:6-13; Mk. 14:3-9; Lk. 7:36-50; Jn. 12:1-11.
5) Triumphal Entry: Mt. 21:1-11; Mk. 11:1-10; Lk. 19:29-44; Jn. 12:12-19.
6) Last Supper: Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-26; Lk. 22:7-23; Jn. 13:1-35.
7) Gethsemane: Mt. 26:36-56; Mk. 14:32-52 Lk. 22:40-53; Jn. 18:1.
8) The Trials: Mt. 26:57-27:31; Mk. 14:43-15:20; Lk. 22:47-23:37; Jn. 18:2-19:3.
9) The Crucifixion: Mt. 27:32-56; Mk. 15:21-41; Lk. 23:26-56; Jn. 19:1-37.
10) His Burial: Mt. 27:57-28:15; Mk. 15:42-47; Lk. 23:50-56; Jn. 19:38-42.
11) The Resurrection: Mt. 28:1-10; Mk. 16:1-11; Lk. 24:1-12; Jn. 20:1-18."

A worthwhile study might be to ask ourselves, what is the significance of these events?​

 

[kyredneck]

Things mentioned 4 or 3 or 2 times are probably more important to the gospel than items mentioned only once.

Redundant in the scriptures, "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established". I think it unwise to form a doctrine from only one mention in the scriptures.

 

[kyredneck]

I have experienced fierce opposition in my life from some other believers when I have drawn attention to truths that are taught only once in Scripture. I can attest from direct personal experience that there are believers out there who argue intensely against placing doctrinal importance on some things that are only stated once in Scripture.

Lol, I've experienced 'fierce opposition' from the brainwashed Reformed/Calvinist crew over MANY passages that explicitly refutes their 'justified by faith only' dogma, all the while they're unable to produce even one passage that supports their teaching.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Redundant in the scriptures, "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established". I think it unwise to form a doctrine from only one mention in the scriptures.

What you say is "unwise" amounts to a denial of 2 Tim. 3:16-17:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Spirit did not say, "All scripture that is repeated is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine . . ."

 

[kyredneck]

What you say is "unwise" amounts to a denial of 2 Tim. 3:16-17:

I've denied nothing. Go chill out. It'd be 'wise' of you to not take yourself so seriously.

 

[37818]

so what is the purpose of this thread?

Deuteronomy 8:3. But it is cited twice, Luke 4:4 and Matthew 4:4. A single alone reference can be an essential teaching to understand a teaching correctly.

Whether a teaching in the Bible occurs one time, or a hundred times, so what?

If a teaching never existed in the written word, so what!
Bad doctrines are based on what the Scripture does not say or ignorance or denial on what it does say.

Are you casting doubt on the single references?

No. They may be even more important than realized.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

so what is the purpose of this thread? Whether a teaching in the Bible occurs one time, or a hundred times, so what? Are you casting doubt on the single references?

All Scripture is true whether a teaching appears once or a hundred times. But one way that we come to a proper understand of Scripture is to compare one text with another. If the teaching occurs only once, special care is needed to make sure that we are understanding it correctly. 1 Corinthians 15:29 is a case in point.

 

[37818]

Redundant in the scriptures, "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established". . . .

I have thought about this. Applying this to God leads to not believing God. Such as Titus 1:2, ". . . In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; . . ."

 

[37818]

I've denied nothing. Go chill out. It'd be 'wise' of you to not take yourself so seriously.

You deny interpretations you do not agree with. Truthfully we all do this. But unfortunately some of us are close minded. It is one thing to be narrow minded on matters of understood truth. To be close minded can lead to denial of truth. Do you, for example deny Romans 4:4-5, ". . . Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. . . ."? And James is understood to have written before Paul, not Paul before James.

Lol, I've experienced 'fierce opposition' from the brainwashed Reformed/Calvinist crew over MANY passages that explicitly refutes their 'justified by faith only' dogma, all the while they're unable to produce even one passage that supports their teaching.

 

[Van]

Redundant in the scriptures, "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established". I think it unwise to form a doctrine from only one mention in the scriptures.

Thanks for your insight, and I agree, we should rely on doctrines that are well supported, rather than something read into a single verse. OTOH, let us consider Hebrews 9:28 and the claim Jesus coming "again" only appears here.

Act 1:11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”